OREGON AGRI CULTURAL EXPERIMENT STAT ION
Wn
A. Sohoenfeld, Director
October, 1935
Circular of Information 129
COSTS AND CARRYING CAPACITIES OF FARM PASTURES IN OREGON
(For the year 1934)
?rogre8s Report No. 1
by
H. E. Selby, Acting Head, Department of Farm Management
Oran M. Ne1son Animal Husbandman, Department of Animal Husbandry
William Gorton, Research Assistant, Department of Farm Management
* * * * * * .* .* * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * *. *. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
ACKNOWDGW1S
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The study reported on herein wis made possible
only because of the excellent cooperation received
The authors
from the many individuals participating.
wish to express their appreciation for assistance
rendered by the farmers who cooperated in this study;
by county agents A.fton Zunde2, C. H, Bergstrom, G. H.
Jenkins, 0. S. Fletcher, F. C, Mullen, 'N. S. Averill,
J, R, Beck, H, L, Riches, S. T. Imite, J, J, Inskeep,
W, F. Cyrus, 5, B. Hall, G. Y, Hagglund, W. B. Tucker,
F, T. Fortner, and R. G, Larson, who assisted in
selecting representative study areas ar contacting
farms; by E, J. Niederfrank and Howard Smith, graduate
assistants in Farm Management; G, 'N. Kuhiman, Assoclate Economist, Department of Farm Management, and E.
R. Jackman, Extension Agronomist, who assisted in
securing field records; and by A, S. Burner, Assoc
late Economist, Department of Farm Man.gement, who
assisted in preparing the manuscript for this progress
report.
** ****** ***** ******* * ***** * * *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
'
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
COSTS AJD CJRRYING CAPACITIES OF FARM PASTURES I' OREGON
Grass for pasture purposes is from the acreage standpoint, by
far the most important Thrm crop in Oregon. According to preliminary
figures from the 1935 Census, 12,038,576 acres, or 6D percent of the
land in farms, in Oregon are used Ibr pasture purposes. Yii0 the proportion of the farm araa used for grazing varies somewhat in the different agricultural regions of Oregon it is significant that in only
one region, the Willamette Valley, is less than half of the land in
farms so used, and in two regions over 80 percent of the land in farms
is classed as pasture (Table 1). The importance of farm pastures is
further emphasized by the preliminary figures for the 1935 Ccnus which
show a total of 171,000 horses and mules, 929,000 cattle, and 2,210,000
sheep on farms January 1, 1935. Much of the feed a.pp1y of this vast
herd of livestock must come from farm pastures.
TABLE 1.
PERCENT.WE OF TOTAL FRM ACREAGE IN PASTURE
Agricultural
region
Lan
in
farms
(aires)
Peroenag ofTirm land nsure
able
Woodland
9%
Plow-
61%
15
66
83
5
9
67
81
1,078,591
7
35
24
66
637,361
7
22
24
53
2_,957,154
1
31
12
44
l,357,549
4
16%
495
4,363,126
2%
Blue Mountains
3,504,828
2
Central Oregon
4,816,489
Southern Oregon
Willamette Valley
STATE TOTAL
Source of data:
Tota'
Pasture
5
Columbia Basin
Coast
Other
Preliminary figures from 1935 Census.
Owing to differences in soil, climnte and elevation, the typc and
quality of both native ar tame pastures vary widely in the different
s a result of these differences, there
agricultural regions of Oregon.
can be no uniform system of pasture management for the state as a whole.
Each region has tended, by trial and error methods, to work out systems
of grazing and pasture management applicable to the existing conditions
in that particular region. There is considerable evidence that this
procedure has not been conducive to the fullest utilization of the
pasture resources of Oregon.
It is believed that one of the first steps in working out bettor
methods of farm pasture utilization is to measure as accurately as possible the economic position of these pastures. The report whih follows
constitutes a brief preliminary summary of the first year's results of
such a study. The data presented cover the calendar year of 1934 and
were secured by the survey method directly from cooperating farmers.
Objectives of the Stu4y
The specific objectives of 'this study are:
1.
To ascertain the carrying capacities of various types
of tame and native farm pastures in the different agricultural regions of Oregon.
2.
To determine the costs of establishing and maintaining
these pastures.
3,
To point out the major factors which affect the establishment and maintenance costs of these pastures.
4.
To suggest methods by which the establishW.Oflt and maintenance costs of such pastures may be reduced.
The cost figures and other data presented in this report are
in nature and are not intended to fully cover all of the
prelimina
above objectives. All data presented are subject to revision when the
final report on this project is issued.
Scope
Study
In this report the three agricultural regions of Eastern Oregon
have been considered as one unit, since so far only the irrigated pastures
of these regions have been studied, and irrigated pasture conditions in
these areas are very similar. Other regions studied during the first
year of work were the Coast ar Wil].cmette Valley areas.
The location, by counties and regions, of the farms cooperating in
Information was obtained conthis study is shown on the cover page.
cerning a total of 373 pastures located on 319 different farms. These
pastures contained 15,964 acres of actual pasture exclusive of waste areas,
and during 1934 provided 1,743,471 animal unit days* of grazing. Of those
farms, 229 were located in the Willamette Valley, 68 in the Coast areas
and 76 in the eastern Oregon irrigated areas, The heavy representation
given the Willamette Valley was occasioned by the fact that it has such
variable types of pasture, and by the agricultural importance of this area
which contains 54 percent of the total farms in the state.
In this study the term "animal unit day" refers to grazing for not loss
than ten hours during a continuous twenty-four hour period of either .8 of
a horse, 1 head cattle two years or older, 2 yearling cattle or calves, 5
mature sheep or goats, 5 lambs or kids after July 1, 8 hogs or 100 poultry.
If grazing amounted to less than two hours it was ignored; if two hours or
over, but less than eight hours, credit was given for one-half animal unit
day; and if eight hours or over but less than ten hours, credit was given
for three-fourths day of graEing. Frequently supplemental feeding was practiced, but this was ignored in computing a day of grazing.
*
3.
Kind of Stook Pastured
The kinds of stock pastured on the 373 pastures covered by this
in both the Willamette Valley and the
study are indicated in Table 2.
irrigated areas of Eastern Oregon, farm flocks of sheep constitutc a
substantial percentage of the animal unit days of grazing, while in the
coast area dairy cattle are the only important typo of stock grazed.
Likewise cattle other than dairy stock arc of some importance in both
Eastern Oregon and the Willamette Valley. In considering the data which
in mind, for they have a direct bearfollow, these facts should be borr
ing on pasture management, and on many of the other factors considered
in this study.
TABLE 2. DISTRIBUTION OF .NIM.L UNIT DAYS
OF GRAZING BY KINDS OF LIVESTOCK
Kind of stock
roentage distribution of i
Eastern
1illainetto
Valley
Oregon
as
Coast
43%
54%
87%
Young dairy stock
9
6
7
Other cattle
7
15
Sheep
22
12
2
Lambs
10
4
-
Goats
7
-
2
Hogs
-
-
-
Horses
2
7
Dairy cows
TOTAL
100%
100%
100%,
Cost of Maintaining Farm Pastures
The itemized costs of maintaining farm pastures in the Coast,
Willaxnette Valley, and representative Eastern Oregon irrigated areas
are presented in Tables 3,4, and 5. These costs include not only the
direct cash outlay, but also noncash or deferrable cost items suoh as
the value of operator and family labor, depreciation of equipment and
stand, and 5 percent interest on the farmer' a estimated value of the
pasture land. Al]. costs presented are weighted averages of a composite
The number of records and area of pasture averaged in each sample
sam)le.
is indicated at the head of each column.
4.
In considering the costs per acre and per animal unit day it
should be borne in mind that these costs may have little relation to the
quality or value of' the grazing produced. An attempt has been made to
measure the quality of the feed produced by the different types of pastures in terms of Total Digestible Nutrients (T.D.N.),* Cost per pound
of T, D. N., the end product in which the stookman is chiefly interested,
is shown in next to the last line of Tables 3,4, and 5.
All of the data in this report pertaining to Total Digestible
Nutrients (T.D.N.) &re based on pastures where 90% or more of the animal
T.DIIN.
are not
Consequently the data on
units pastured were dairy cows.
based on the same number of records as the data on costs and animal unit
days of grazing. The number of reoords for whioh T.D.N. data were available are shown in parentheses in the last line of Tables 3,4, and 5.
The amount of grazing yielded by non-irrigated pastures in Oregon
is strongly influenced by the amount of rainfall during the pasture
season. Particularly is this true of native hill pastures in Western
Oregon, many of which are on shallow soil which has a low moisture holding capacity. During the 1934 pasture season (April to September inclusive) precipitation in both the Willamette Valley and Coast areas was
considerably below the normal rainfall for this period. In fact there
have been but 3 other years (1909, 1018 and 1024) during the last ZB
years with such low precipitation during the pasture season. Because of
this lack of rainfall the yields of pasturage for non-irrigated pastures,
as shown in Tables 3 and 5, are probably below normal, thereby causing
the cost per feed unit to rise above normal. Partiularly is this true
for pastures which happened to be on soils with a low moisture holding
capacity.
Willamette Valley Area
The farm pastures studied in the Willamotte Valley area have been
grouped into 4 classes; namely, permanent native grass, permanent and
semi-permarnt seeded tame grass, permanent and semi-permanent leumos,
and annual seeded pastures. These four o13sses have bean further broken
down into 10 sub-classes, on the basis of the predominating forage cover.
The annual maintenance cost per acre, th total animal unit days of grazing per acre, the pounds of Total Digestible Nutrients produced per acre,
the cost per animal unit day of grazing and the cost per 100 pounds of
Total Digestible Nutrients for each pasture sub-class is presented in
Table 3.
* The T.D.N. produced by pastures has been computed by ascertaining the
net T,D.N. requirement for animal maintenance and milk production, allowance being made for nutrients supplied by supplementary feed. The T.DN.
requirements used are based on Hacoker's feeding standard. The amount of
TID.N, in supplementary food was evaluated at 50 per cent for roughage,
15 per cent for suoculents, and 75 per cerrt for eoncentrates.
L.BLE 3.
AVERAGE
NNtLL COST PER iCRE OF MLINTAi NIiG FARM PASTURES
229 Pastures, 7illomette Valley
1934 Pasture Season
>errnanent end seril-perman- Peanent end scrii-per-
?ermnent
nient
native grass ient seeded tome grasses
Native Nativ
grass
grass
50- Rye
75Canary Mixed
Alfalfa
l0
74% rass
grass
grass
Item
Totel number of records
Acres of actual pasture
Aores of actual pasture per farm
Animal unit dajof grazing
'
76
13
724
7340
96
£9524
.01
.01
-
56
59672
3
NET COST PER ACRE
.43
3.93
64
053
iI1
Pounds of TD.N. per acre
68
93
64
9
32
10
75
8
0619
24409
152537
3 .07
16231
31.83
9
-
Fertilizing
Seed bed preparation
Seed and seeding
Cultivating
*
Weeding and clipping
Irrigation (labor & rtter)
Fence (upkeep, intorest & depre.26
ciation)
Miscellaneous operations
.02
Drainage tax
Depreciation of stand
Taxes on land
.75
Interest on land investment @s%
.38
TOTJ, COSTS PER ACRE
),43
*
Credit for hay or seed
Animal unit days of grazing per
acre
Cost per animal unit day of graz-
16
415
26
3
-
.G
-
4].
1331
Red
and
alsiko
clover
Z0
327
16
56506
3 .26
Ladino
clover
irrigated
8965
-
-
.04
.44
.02
.40
.21
1.00
3.46
1.13
2.50
1.62
6.13
.84
.17
.32
.87
1.61
4.99
7.76
10.24
-
5.68
13.68
-
9.14
.00
.30
10.24
5.68
13.68
82
98
290
115
.048
**
064
.035
2610
.050
1705
-
.01
-
.28
.04
-
.62
-
.70
2.86
.37
.26
.85
3,93
.30
*
-
587
,54
1.14
.14
1.98
6.30
.04
-
.01
.20
6.17
.86
8
3-
610
32
62118
.04
535
244
2.16
.09
1.06
.01
.62
.32
3.27
1.73
Rape,
rape
and
clover
Regional
average
tS
71036
3 .45
.01
-
-
grass
63
.39
.08
-
-
.19
Sudan
17
.07
.05
pastures_
216
13
-
- -
F.nnual seeded
leime pastures
-
11185
49
961617
3 .04
.17
.10
*
*
.01
-
.01
.12
.40
-
.34
.02
.06
15
.89
2.92
.96
3.03
1.35
3.87
20.77
-
12.22
9.17
-
-
8.34
20.77
12.22
9.17
4.79
216
173
329
142
102
86
.063
1412
.94
.048
1991
.36
.063
4054
.60
.086
1813
.64
.089
.056
1702
.58
**
**
4.82
.03
**
Cost per 100 pounds of T,D.N.
.47
,5
Number of r ecords used in T.D.N.
**
**
(53)_
computations
(4)
(9)
(8)
(5)
9)
4)
-* Loss than
** Data insufficient
Note:
The
stije sub-classes shown above are based on the fact that 60% or more of the cover vias of the typo named.
Where no on,tRecies contjtutos as much as 50% of the cover the pasture has been classed as a mixed grass type.
(5)(9)_
6.
In studying Table 3 it should be borne in mind that these are
preliminary figures only and that sufficient data are riot yet available to warrant olose comparisons between the various pastures.
In the last column of Table 3 are shown the combined or average
costs for all types of pastures studied in the Wil1iette Valley. Since
this is a weighted figure it is, of course, strongly influenced by the
costs shown for permanent native grass pasture, as this is the predominating type of pasture in this area and was the predominating type in
the sample studied, It is believed, however, that this average fairly
represents the pasture cost situation in the Willamette Valley. A
study of these regional costs shows that about 60 percent of the annual
maintenance cost consisted of interest at 5 percent on the estimated
value of the farm pastures. Nineteen percent consisted of taxes, 7
percent was chargeable to fenoc cost, arid the remaining 14 percent
covered such items as seeding, irrigation, depreciation of stand, etc.
Whi1 these percentages vary somewhat for the various pastures, it is
noteworthy that, excepting ladino clover and sudan grass, the interest
and taxes in each case constitute 57 percent or more of the total gross
of the 10 pastures constitute over
maintenance cost per acre, and for
Willametto Valley
70 percent of the gross annual maintenance coat.
farmers as a group appear to be very conservative with expenditures
for such items as fertilizer, re-seeding or stand maintenance, cultivation, and weed control, all of which are conducive to pasture betterme nt,
Table 3 brings out rather definitely the cost advantage most
pastures usually have over dry feed. With grain at 25 a ton and hay
at l0 a ton the cost per hundred pounds of total digestible nutrients
in grain and hay is l.67 and l.00, respectively. Most of the pastures studied were providing digestible nutrients at costs substantially
in addition to tho cost advantage there are other
under these figures.
advantages to be considered which favor pa.sture over dry feed, such as
saving in labor, greater palatability, increased rate of growth of young
animals, particularly lambs, and increased milk production of cows and
When all of these factors, including comparative costs, are conewes.
sidered it would appear that ample pasturago is a factor of great
economic importance to Willaxnette Valley dairnen and stockmen.
The use of irrigated lndirio pasture, which is a fairly recent
development, has been considered by many as the beginning of a new
era in Willamette Valley livestock farming. The preliminary data shown
in Table 3 indicates that, from a cost standpoint, ladino clover is
Practically
slightly more expensive than several other types of pastures.
all pastures except native grass and alfalfa produced digestible nutrients
at costs comparable to or loss than the cost of producing these nutrients
by use of irrigated ladino clover.
Several things should be pointed out in this connection, however.
First, irrigation of pasture, oven though slightly more costly, is
usually the most practical way of insuring a continuous supply of forag
throughout the season. Second, yields of T,D.N per acre are aut
7.
twice as large for irrigated ladino as for most non-irrigated grass
or legume pastures and hence stock can be pastured on less land, Third,
almost any type of soil can be used for ladino if water is available,
whore many other pastures suoh as canary grass, red and alsike clover,
and alfalfa are rather selective as to types of soil.
Many Willametto Valley stock farms do not have a supply of irrigation water available, and hence cannot be irrigated. In many instances, however, such farms can produce a considerablo quantity of
pasture by using a carefully selected sequence of pasture crops. Alfalfa
has especial value in such a sequence for it will usually provide late
suximier and early fall pasture after other pastures have dried up. It is
believed that many Willaxiiette Valley livestock farmers could well afford
to give careful consideretion to improving their pastures with the
resources they have available rather than to hesitate because irrigation
may not be praotioal on their farm.
Eastern Oregon Irrigated Region
Native blue grass is the predominating irrigated pasture in the
In many instncc-s such pastures are
areas studied in Eastern Oregon.
the residue from former alfalfa fields or seeded pastures. Meadows and
pastures in this area usually revert to blue grass if left alone for
any length of time.
Costs and carrying capacities for these two pasture types are
presented in Table 4. The per acre annual maintenance costs are about
100 percent greater f or mixed seeded than for native bluegrass pasture.
TABLE 4.
AVRAGE ANNUAL COST P
AChE OF vL4INTAINING FARM P\STURES
76 Pastures, Eastern Oregon Irrigated Region
1934 Pasture Season
Item
Total number of records
Acres of actual pasture
Acres of actual pasture per farm
Animal unit days of grazing
Native
blue
grass
5
212
37
3l5il
.40
Fertilizing
.01
Seed bed preparation
Seed and seeding
.03
Cultivating
.03
Weeding and clipping
.63
Irrigating (labor only)
depreciation
48
Fence (upkeep, interest and
.08
Miscellaneous operations
.97
Irrigation water
Drainage tax
Depreciation of stand
1,08
Taxes on land
3.37
Interest on land investment (5 percent)
ocdeä
mixed
Regional
grass
average
17
115
7
34O4
2.34
.05
.04
.01
.22
1.55
1,54
-
2.96
.10
.68
1,61
4.35
76
2307
30
34696
.50
.01
*
.03
.04
.88
.53
*
1.07
.08
.03
1.10
3.42
CRE
Credit for hay or seed
7,06
15.45
1.13
7.49
.02
NET COST PER ACRE
7.06
14.32
7.42
Animal unit days of grazing per acre
144
.'49
297
152
1,082
.54
3,280
1,324
.44
.51
(5)
(ii)
TOTAL COSTS Pbki
Cost per_animal_unityofrazin
Pounds of T D N per acre
Cost per 100 pounds T D N
Number of records used in T D N
Computations
(6)
.07.
Q8
*Le
than .5 cent
**Data insufficient
The pasture classes shown above are based on the fact that 50% or more
Note:
of the cover was of the type named. 1IThere no one plant species constitutes as
much as 50% of the cover the pasture has boen classed as a mixcd grass type.
9.
Farmers with seeded pastures expended considerably more per acre
for such items as fertilizing, reseding and weed oontrol than farmers
Also they appeared to irrigate more,
with native blue grass pastures,
as is indicated by the comparative labor charge for irrigating. Overhead charges such as interest, taxes, irrigation district tax, stand
depreciation and fønoe costs were also higher for seeded than for native
pastures, However, seeded pastures produced about 3 1/3 times as much
nutrients per acre as the native pastures, which more than offset the
higher per acre costs incurred and resulted in a lower cost per 100
pounds of total digestible nutrients.
Coast Regions
In the Coast region the principal source of pasturage is found
in the bottom and tideland pastures. These pastures are chiefly mixed
grasses, but some are predominantly bent grass or canary grass. Associated with these bottom land pastures are considerable acreages of
hill pasture, some of which have been seeded and partially improved.
The hill pastures usually have a rather low carrying capacity while
conversely the bottom land pastures have an exceptionally high carrying
capacity.
Data pertaining to maintenance costs and carrying capacity of
A very noticeable feature of
coast pastures are presented in Table 5.
bottom land pasture costs in this area is the high costs for interest
and taxes. For the 57 bottom land pastures studied in this region
those two annual costs amounted to nearly *14 an acre of which about
30 percent was for taxes.
10.
TABLE 5,
AVERAGE ANNUAL COST PER -CRE OF MAINTAINING FARM PASTURES
68 Pastures,, Coast Region
1934 Pasture Season
Bc)ttomLandturcs
ut*
Hill
pasture grass
Item
Total nujaber of records
Acres of actual pasture
Acres of actual pasture per farm
Animal unit days of grazing
Depreciation of stand
Taxes on land
Interest on land investment
grass
1].
12
6
408
34
172
29
54072
65248
50236
39
1214
31
262602
.05
.74
.07
.04
-
08
-
-
.05
.06
.03
.03
.23
-
.36
.03
.52
.20
Regional
average
68
2472
36
432158
$ .40
.28
.14
.05
.08
.04
.20
.08
1.12
.06
.72
.14
.61
.12
-
-
-
.01
-
1.32
.02
.11
-
-
-
tainage tax
Mixed
grass
678
62
.14
.05
.21
Fertilizing
Seed bed preparation
Seed and seeding
Cultivating
We2ding and clipping
Irrigating (labor only)
Fence (upkeep, interest &
depreciation)
Miscellaneous operations
Irrigation water
Can*
.12
-
-
-
-
3.33
7.54
5.30
8.50
4.42
8,71
4.02
9,95
TOTAL COSTS PER ACRE
Credit for hay or seed
3.86 14.61
15.80
16.20
12.56
.09
.34
NET COST PER ACRE
3,86 14.78
15.80
15.51
12.22
.62
5%
2.33
-.03
-
Animal unit days of grazing per
Cost per animal unit day of grazing $.048
160
.092
292
,O54
216
,072
175
.O69
**
**
1196
l.17
2979
2132
2021
$ .53
76
77
**
(6)
acre
Pounds of T.D.N. per acre
Cost per 100 pounds T.D.N.
Number of records used in T,D,N.
computations
80
(4)
(19)
(29)
* Less than .5 cent
** Data insufficient
* These pasture c1asse are based on the fact that 50% or more of the cover w
of the type named. Ithere no one plant species conatitutes as much as 50% of
the cover the pasture has been classed as a mixed grass type.
Cash and Non-cash Costs of Maintaining Farm Pastures
11.
Only a portion of the annual costs of maintaining farm pastures
are direct cash or out-of-pocket costs. Items such as the labor of
the operator or his family, depreciation, and interest on the pasture
investment (if free of mortgage) are frequently considered as non-oash
or deferrable costs for usually they do not require payment at any
specific time, In this study all interest was charged as a non-cash
cost as data were not available to indioate the indebtedness chargeable to pasture investmerit.
The annual maintenance costs for the 373 pastures covered by
this study have been segregated into cash and non-cash groups in
Table 6. Cash outlay is shown to be 25 per cent, 36 per cent, and
22 per cent, rospectively, for the Willainetto Valley, Eastern Oregon
irrigated area, and Coast regions. Cash costs . d not exceed 40 per
cent of the total inaintonance costs for any of the 16 types of pas-
ture listed in the first column of Table 6, and for 8 of the 16 pastures, cash costs were 25 jer cent or less.
aside from all the advantoges previously noted in favor of
pasture over dry feed, there is an added advantage in the low cash
cost of pasture. The cash cost of producing hay and grain svcrages
about 50 per cent of the total cost, while the cash cost of pasture
averages about half of this anint, Hence an abundance of pasture
makes possible a feed supply at a great saving in direct cash outlay.
During periods of low livestock or butterfat prices this is an important financial factor.
CASH AND NON-CASH COSTS OF MA INTAIN ING FAR PASTURES
TABLE 6.
373 Pastures, All Regions, 1934 Pasturo Season
Ch
c'sts
per acre
Non-cash costs per acre
______I
V
V
Mis eel-
Region and
kind
of pasture
Hired
labor
V
WILLAMETTE VALLEY
Native grass 75-1Oc
Native grass 50-74%
Rye grass
Mixed grass
Canary grass
lfalfa
Red
alsike clever
Ladino clover irrigated
Sudan grass
Rape, rape and clover
Regional average
lancous
cash
expense'
Total
cash
costs
3 .75
.70
1.26
1.00
1.98
1.62
1.61
1,73
3 .05
3 .82
.07
.29
.47
.68
.95
.65
2.68
.0
.96
1.35
.o9
2,64
1.82
.30
1,08
1.61
1.10
1.13
3.30
1.25
Taxes
j Unpaid
Credit Not
for
Cash
fcthly
hay
costs labor
Dopreciation
I
I
3 .02
.03
.01
.02
.37
.08
.11
.51
.25
.05
1.56
1.49
3.03
2.65
2.37
4,92
3,60
3.42
1.24
*
.80
-
.03
3 .04
3 .82
.80
1.5t
1,49
3.03
2.65
1.57
4,92
1
360
3.421
1.214
.07
.07
.08
.32
.39
.26
1.45
2,11
.61
.13
$ .12
.14
.67
.48
.40
3.44
1,29
5.44
.95
.60
.37
cellaneous jTotal Total
non- cost
nonInter-cash
cash: per
est**costscosts
32.44$
2,92
4.00
3.58
6.49
6.59
5.18
8.83
3,42
4,09
3.02
.44
.14
.42
32,61133.43
3.13 3.93
.01
4.'14t 6.30
*
4.19 5.68
7.21 10.24
11.03 13.63
8.34
6.77
15.85 20.77
8.62 12.22
.05
.61
.04
.13
2.14
575 9.17
.45
.06
353'79
V
V
EASTERN OREGON IRRIGATED R EGION
Flue grass
Mixed grass
_Regional average
acro
2.65
5,05
3.49
4.79
.48
.27
1.72
.34
36
.26
1.93
,34
.26
.70
.17
,21
.46
.22
.33
.28
.57
.31
2.43
10.09
8.58
8.87
7.65
.15
.57
.02
.06
.33
1.13
2. 6
3.92
.41
1.96
.07
2.7ç
.02
4.43 7.06
10.40 14.32
4.72 7.42
V
COAST REGION
Native hilT pasture
Mixed grass
Bent grass
mary
_Regiona average
.05
.22
.41
.10
.20
.62
4.02
5.30
4.42
3.32
.13
.27
.05
1.57
.29
.80
4,51
5.76
6.09
3.81
.69
.03
.34
.80
3.821
5,731
6.09
3.47
3a06
3.86
11.6915.51
9.O5 14.78
9.71115.80
_8.75il2.2Ji
* Less than -?- cent
** Includes interest on both land end oquipmont investment chargeable to pasture.
4 Includes such items as drainage tax, seed, electricity for irrigating, fuel and oil, repairs to fence and equipment
and connnercjal fertilizer.
4* Chiefly horse labor and manure.
13.
Individual Farm Costs
The last page of this report consists of a confidential
tabular report to eoh cooperating farmer, showing the annual
maintenance costs for each pasture on which such costs were reported. These oost may be compared to the average costs for
similar pastures in the acme region by referring to the page of
the report indicated at the bottom of the table. Such comparisons will indicate where pasture costs are above averge and
should also indicate possibilities for reducing costs.
14.
Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station
PASTURE COST STUDY
INDIVIDUAL COST REPORT FOR THE YEAR 1934
onfidentTT)
!oiri1 .°L
YOUR
ITEMS
PASTURE
TOTAL ACRES IN PASTURE
ACRES OF ACTUAL PASTURE
A. U. DAYS
R ACRE ACTUAL PASTURE
ITEMIZED COST PER ACRE:
Fertilizing
Soil Preparation
Seeding
Cult ivati rig
Wee ding
Irrigating
Fence
Mis cc ilane ous
Depreciation of Stand
Taxes
Interest on Land
Credit for Hay or Seed
TOTAL NET COST PER ACRE
COST PER ANIMAL UNIT DAY
The cost and carrying cr'pacity of your pasture, as shown above, may
be compared with the average for pastures of similar type in your region
by referring to Table
of this report.